Countries with a long average working time are more economically successfull than those countries which do not have a long working time. To what extend you agree or disagree?

Human resource is the backbone of the economy of any country in the world. It is controversial that number of working

time

is the determinant of economic success.

This

essay tries to elaborate on the truthfulness of the above statement.

To begin

with, the period of working

extent

is gradually reducing all over the world from 1960 to 2020

due to

the introduction of machinery in industries and offices regardless of the economic status of countries. The number of working

time

widely varies in different territories.

For example

, people in India work more than 2200 hours in a year,

whereas

, in Germany, annual working

extent

are

Change the verb form

is

show examples

only 1300.

However

, the economical status of Germany is far higher compared to India.

In addition

to

this

, I would like to highlight that the working

time

in many developed nations

such

as the USA, the UK, Switzerland and France is below 1500 hours per year. Meanwhile, the working communities in Myanmar and Bangladesh have to do their jobs for a longer period. These figures clearly show that the financial stability of any nation is not dependent on the

extent

of work.

In contrast

, Office bearers,

as well as

labours spend more

time

in their office and factories even in some rich counties

such

as Singapore and South Korea.

According to

research evidence, economists explain that the financial strength of any nation is not only influenced by working

extent

but

also

by many other factors. The efficiency of the workforce, the stress-free mentality of employees and the salary paid to them are too contribute to deciding economic success. In conclusion, GDB and percapita are not mainly dependent on the period of working hours but are influenced by many factors.